Return-Path: Received: from relay04.roc.ny.frontiernet.net ([66.133.131.37] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.5) with ESMTP id 2631028 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 23:54:11 -0400 Received: (qmail 21777 invoked from network); 10 Oct 2003 03:54:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO frontiernet.net) ([170.215.97.8]) (envelope-sender ) by relay04.roc.ny.frontiernet.net (FrontierMTA 2.3.6) with SMTP for ; 10 Oct 2003 03:54:08 -0000 Message-ID: <3F861F7D.17F877E6@frontiernet.net> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 22:54:53 -0400 From: Jim Sower X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: EWP - Success at last? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <... we have the evidence flying so what more can I say. Even if its not 0.135 HP its clear that real world data regarding EWP on the flying rotary has clearly shown it is entirely feasible...> You couldn't be more right. When the smoke clears and the dust settles, we're going to be a DAMN SITE closer to 0.135 hp than 13.5. All accumulated data will demonstrate that PL is off by a couple orders of magnitude. No surprises there .... Jim S. > Marvin Kaye wrote: > >> I mean >> we have the evidence flying so what more can I say. Even if >> its not 0.135 HP >> its clear that real world data regarding EWP on the flying >> rotary has clearly >> shown it is entirely feasible and does not need to draw >> several hundred amps >> as Paul's calculations indicated. Your figures are no >> better than the >> accuracy of your assumptions (trust me - I know {:>) >> >> Best Regards >> >> Ed Anderson >> RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered >> Matthews, NC >> eanderson@carolina.rr.com >> >> >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >> >> Archive: >> http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html >